About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
. the science of win is just as biological as it is mental. take dog hammers, for one example. for women handlers who befriend their competition before a show. testosterone levels actually decrease. for men it continues to rise, fueling their competitive drive. ladies, don't fret. the science also shows that we are actually better at risk taking. here to help us and you identify your own competitive style and tip the odds in your favor is best selling author, the author of top dog. winning and losing. in the book you write from champion tennis players to nba students to army recruits to jeopardy contestants, even children just racing across the playground. women and men compete differently. how so? >> well, women are actually very good at judging the odds of whether they're going to win or lose. women are very sensitive to those odds. on wall street, female financial analysts, they're 7.3% more accurate than male financial analysts. a brand new study just this week showed that women-run hedge funds outperformed male-run hedge funds. all that ability to see the risk and be sense i have th
's national laboratories. it was titled, the sequester is going to devastate u.s. science research for decades. they said this drop in funding will force to us cancel all new programs and research initiatives, probably for at least two years. is that going to put a damper on our future prospects? >> if the sequester holds in its current form for the ten years that it is supposed to, then yes, the answer is there will definitely be horrible consequences. i think before we go to the bad news, you need to give a little context. the good news is that america has been investing in research and development. it has been investing in science and technology at a very high rate. in 2009, thanks partly to the stimulus, the u.s. investment matched the previous high at the space race at 2.9 of gdp. that amount of money being poured into public and private research. so we've come down a little because of the budget cuts already put in place and we've come down much more because of the sequester. that speaks exactly to what i was argue ewing in my special report. the federal government tends to either not re
science, moral authority, et cetera, was already with them. that the country had already decided. and the polling didn't always bear that out. the voting didn't always bear that out. in 2008 when prop 8 passed, it was such a shock and a blow because for years, the gay rights community was insisting that a state has evolved in liberalist california would never allow this to happen. so it was shocking. well, now i think that narrative has caught up to the insistence, the promise of that sea change might finally be here. so to jonathan capehart's point, maybe scotus doesn't see the need for its involvement. whatever you think of the issue, i can see capehart's point that they might be reluctant given the new narrative. >> i don't know how the citizenses will rule. i don't pretend to have any particular insight into their mind sets here. but another comparison that he reference in the his piece was a new york time article over the weekend about parallels with the row v. wade decision. and the idea that the roe v. wade decision was in some ways counterproductive. created a back lash a
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)